The 2008 cover was intended to be (and was interpretable & explained as) a commentary on and parody of how Republicans presumably viewed Obama.

This cover is a commentary on and parody of Obama, Obama's debate performance. There's no other plausible way to interpret this. This cover quotes a right-wing meme (Eastwood's empty chair), not to critique or parody it, but to validate it! Amazing.

Before the debate, I'd been thinking how Republicans/ conservatives (especially pundits) are much more apt than Democrats/ liberals (especially pundits) to criticize, attack, turn on their candidates. Which is in some ways and in some cases a virtue, and in others a vice.

Post debate, that contrast isn't so easy to maintain. I'm not sure whether my generalization is off base (I honestly think there's something to it), or whether what happened in this debate was just *that* shocking to Democrats and liberals.

I do think, if Romney ends up winning the 2012 election, this debate will be seen as a significant historical event. If Obama ends up winning, it will just be seen as a fluke or factoid.

Election night may be traumatic. After the election, perhaps one AP personality will decisively crush the other. But who's the Dr. Jekyll and who's the Mr. Hyde? AP, we here in the Althouse community are here for you. Take care.

Hell, if the Mormons worked as hard on his genealogy as they do on everyone else's, they'd trace his ancestry to Easter Island,...

Crank Em Cee raises an interesting sidenote.

Genealogy has become more popular recently but I really think that a Romney presidency will kick it into high gear. Not just the paper genealogy, but also the "wet" DNA-based stuff. The technology is there; costs will come down; the timing is right; the internet facilitates it; the Government will LOVE it (all that demographic data!); it interrelates people at a time when atomization and isolation is accelerating; we need another boom.

As to preference cascades, it isn't that people have to feel comfortable voting for Romney. They just have to feel comfortable NOT voting for Obama.

Case in point. My very liberal, baby-boomer, retired-public-school-teacher aunt and uncle in Georgia told my mom last night that they are writing in someone else rather than vote FOR Obama again. Now, Romney will win GA going away but that isn't the point of the story.

If hard-core libs feel they can't vote FOR Obama such that they would rather write in someone else or not vote at all, that's fine for Romney.

Incidentally, it was Obama's hard-core pro-abortion stand, including the abortion-fest of the DNC that turned off both of them. Roman Catholic. Lib Catholics can tolerate a little bit pro-choice in a Dem politician, just not what they saw in Charlotte.

As I recall, the press really turned hard on Carter, Mondale and Dukakis when it became obvious each one was going to crater. It seems a little early for them to be doing so now, but it looks like they're at least testing their ass-covering narrative options.

Tim, I was thinking the same thing. They're still in denial about Barry's record, but this represents a pretty big public shift in that the true believers are starting to distance themselves from him. Not because progressive policies are wrong, in their minds, but Obama simply wasn't the right guy to carry them out. Just like every other lefty leader that has fallen on his or her face. It wasn't the policies; they just weren't done right!

This cover cracks the liberal unity facade. They have to have permission to dump Barry overboard. It can't be that liberalism failed, it has to be that Barry personally failed.

I think it's interesting that one of the ascendant narratives is the one discussed by Ace of Spades here, one which Althouse has more than once proposed, and which I myself find plausible: Obama (or some part of Obama) just doesn't want to to be POTUS anymore.

I see it more as a deep ambivalance: Obama's narcissism would detest and find it hard to take a defeat, politically reminiscent of Carter; but I think it's plausible that deep down he's sick of the actual job, never enjoyed the actual hard slog of the *job* of POTUS (as opposed to the validation and accolades derived from it, or what he idealistically-ideologically thought he'd accomplish).

It's an interesting narrative, because in a way it provides an overlap for both left and right in their evaluation of Obama. And it's fascinating because it actually provides even the most pro-Obama voters, voters who like Obama and are rooting for him, a reason not to vote for him. A consideration not just for the sake of the country, but for the sake of *Obama himself*.

It's not just that you wouldn't want your country presided over by someone who just doesn't want the job, is repelled from and psychologically unsuited to it-- unsuited to the rigors of the most difficult job in the world. It's that, by not voting for Obama, you'd also be putting Obama *himself* out of his misery. You'd be doing *Obama* a favor.

The narrative is: Obama is in some ways too good for us, too good for the office of the presidency. A fascinating narrative. But you know what, I'm fine with it, if it's what some Democrats, independents, undecideds need to let them off the hook for not voting for Obama.

I, and many others, are celebrating Romney's debate performance, which IMO was extraordinary (especially in contrast to Obama's). I don't think anyone on the right (or if so they're exceptions) think the race is over or the election is a foregone conclusion. On the contrary. (Among other things, the most rightwing of rightwingers have in mind the probability of Dem vote fraud.)

The right is re-invigorated, and there's nothing wrong with that! The take-away from the debate is: the MSM/DNC narrative of the inevitability of Obama's victory, the MSM/DNC narrative of Romney as a doomed gaffetastic loser, is pulverized. The game is on.

Romney has (and has been making) a substantive case for why he should be elected. Obama's camp has been relying on the supposed inevitability of his victory. Vote for us (or don't bother to vote for Romney), because we're winning and have all but won!

I doubt very much the pre-election polls will ever show a decisive Romney lead. (Which is not to say that the margin of a hypothetical Romney victory won't be impressive-- who knows? I don't.) Which is why I think it's unfair to accuse Republicans of "premature celebration."

In arguing the calamity that Urkel performed in front of the world a couple of days ago, my leftard friends are pulling every excuse possible to highlight the horror that is Urkel's performance as a thing that never occured. I have a friend who brought up Iran not violating it's nuclear non-proliferation treaty as function of how Urkel's performance was Bush's fault on invading Iraq. I couldn't make it up. One of the absolute rare moments where I was left speechless.

Genealogy has become more popular recently but I really think that a Romney presidency will kick it into high gear. Not just the paper genealogy, but also the "wet" DNA-based stuff. The technology is there; costs will come down; the timing is right; the internet facilitates it; the Government will LOVE it (all that demographic data!); it interrelates people at a time when atomization and isolation is accelerating; we need another boom.

Keep on dreaming. New blockbuster drugs are rarer, and more expensive. The big advances people so looked forward to from the Genome project haven't materialized. It seems the whole RNA/DNA thing is a bit more complex than people thought it was.

The thing about your feet getting bigger as you grow older - the small, natural discrepancy between each foot size also increases. So by the time you're chickelit's age, count on having to buy two pairs of shoes just to get a single decent pair that fit.

Of course, I'm a much younger man, my information is second-hand from old people. More or less.

Our empty chair was all gangster in his rally today (I heard bits of it on the radio). Oh, what power, what oratory, what passion! They guy could not muster any defense of his policy or anything he had done to help the economy and then he goes all gangster with the cooked up unemployment numbers. Can he tell us what he did do to bring down the unemployment? No, not the cooking numbers thingy, but the real stuff. Oh, yeah, that chair was empty and the occupant was on the golf course or at a fundraiser or hoodwinking gullible, and stupid people.

I, and many others, are celebrating Romney's debate performance, which IMO was extraordinary (especially in contrast to Obama's). I don't think anyone on the right (or if so they're exceptions) think the race is over or the election is a foregone conclusion."

I think it will be interesting to see how Obama handles himself in the next debate. I think that the Romney team expect him to react to the criticism of his own supporters by overcompensating next time. Second debates are well know to be a chance for incumbents to regain their momentum. Reagan did. Obama probably expects to do the same. How ?

I wonder if he will buy the line that Romney lied in the first debate. If he does and attacks on that line, he will risk a worse show because Romney is a numbers guy.

Second, the next debate is supposed to be foreign policy. How is Obama going to defend his policies ? I think he will risk looking more out of touch than ever. Libya cannot be defended but Obama is not a guy who can admit a mistake.

If Obama tries to get aggressive, he will find that Romney is very unlikely to respond the way he wants. Obama will then risk looking angry and peevish.

The second debate can close the door on the loser.

Ryan will wipe the floor with Biden if the VP tries to debate. Biden lied through the debate with Palin but I don't think she had the facts to refute him at hand. Ryan will. He is another numbers guy.

Most of the libs I know cannot articulate why to vote FOR Obama. They only talk about why they are voting against Romney. Ask one of them to give you a list of positive accomplishments by Obama and you won't hear much beyond "health care!" Then they start blathering about abortion and I tune out.

Nothing's a problem for Mitt. Before, his "religion" was distinct from Christianity - now it IS Christianity - and the rest of you buy it, without questioning the discrepancy, the man who would make it, or especially what it means about him.

What is there about Christianity that has a "mother and father god" on a non-existent planet called Kolob?

"Most of the libs I know cannot articulate why to vote FOR Obama. They only talk about why they are voting against Romney. Ask one of them to give you a list of positive accomplishments by Obama and you won't hear much beyond "health care!" Then they start blathering about abortion and I tune out."

Even for those with the courage to acknowledge it, Romney’s domination of the entire 90-min debate is still difficult to comprehend. While the left continues to grope for an explanation, the most obvious ones are various takes on the “Emperor’s clothes”; I’d put the “Eastwood” New Yorker cover in that category.

Obama was a presidential candidate from central casting: Nominated and elected mostly because his biography checked many of the correct boxes, none of which were substantive. I suppose the irony is that the ever-protective media ultimately set him up to fail by propping up the myth. It wasn’t inevitable, but given the right setting, a focused and well-prepared opponent always had the potential to embarrass him. We saw a hint of this when Paul Ryan lectured the President on the myth of Obamacare’s “budget neutrality.” Who knew that the real takedown would come two years later in front of 60 million-plus viewers?

Excuse me for a little exuberance here, but thank goodness for Mitt Romney!

Chickie, did you actually warn Robert Cook today that people are in danger of ingesting the materials in their silicon-based solar panels?

For a guy who disbelieves in avoiding the environmental contamination of hormone disrupting-agents, that's a pretty interesting line of argumentation.

I have yet to witness anyone eating their solar panels. But of course, your mileage may vary. Either that, or the strength of your belief in strange things (and never-before witnessed things) may vary.

"Yet still Californians will vote for Obama, because, well, they don't know why.

Other than, he's not a Republican."

And what more do you need?

phx, Of all the the (relatively few) Dems/ liberals here, I think you'd be one of the tiny few who might one day concede, or at least conceive, the possible prudence of an "independent" political stance-- and that means, a stance which might find it (depending on circumstances) prudent or at least conceivable to vote for a particular Republican candidate, at least as much as the Democrat.

I'm saying - and have always said - you're playing a dangerous game. Especially when you put no restrictions on this man and his cult.

You are dealing with a con - and now including the entire country in it - if it falls apart, and it has every indication it will, we will all be left holding the bag.

I've mentioned my most likely scenario before - a constitutional crisis unlike anything we've ever seen - but, when dealing with cults, anything is possible. My own experience is so far beyond anything I would've ever imagined I'd be involved with - without ever being involved in it - all I can say is, this could get ugly.

I am NOT endorsing Obama. But you guys have locked us into this. So I'm saying don't go in to it blind, don't go in to it stupid, and force the issue NOW before anything's possible to hurt us.

3. Blame low/stagnant wage growth and unemployment on the higher taxes that Democrats have somehow not implemented.

4. Pretend to know and believe that the "middle class" is important, for some reason.

5. Blame every businessperson's ingrown toe and hangnail on some as yet unspecified regulation. Identify regulation as the cause of all economic evil, but don't say what that regulation is and how it somehow got in the way of making money.

6. When in doubt, alert us to the Muslim terror and remind us that there are people less enlightened than us in the world who aren't up to much good. We should be spending every last resource trying to better them and hunt down their miscreants. It helps take the focus off anything that comes up short on the domestic front.

Do tell us of how Schwarzenegger's incisive intellect saved California from the disaster he left it in, Alex.

Just admit that your guys on the right are anti-responsibility.

You know I rarely side with you, but that was another one where I held the line:

Gray Davis was a Democrat, but a Boy Scout and Marine, who was doing everything possible to get that state on it's best possible footing under the circumstances (I grew up there and was living there at the time: the problem was a nutty, incoherent, voting public) but he was a low-key, practical, and definitely not flashy man, so they tossed him aside for an actor/bodybuilder who couldn't do any more than he did. And, in the end, made things worse.

Republicans can be stupid. I'm a Republican and I know this. The insistence - that not going along with my party's worst instincts makes me a problem - doesn't faze me. I'm an atheist, so maybe it's easier to see how the Freedom of Religion gets us into trouble, makes us defend the wrong things, back the wrong people. And, in Romney's case, in the wrong way.

Even in beating Obama, I see absolutely nothing to cheer about now,...

The 2008 cover was, in essence, more a caricature of the misinformed conservatives, trying to radicalize those who the more enlightened saw as bringers of hope. One could laugh at that and see it as a commentary on those flyover others.

The 2012 cover, though, reflects what people themselves witnessed, what liberal media outlets themselves had to say. It reflects more of a caricature of Obama in that way, justifying Eastwood's comments.

he was a low-key, practical, and definitely not flashy man, so they tossed him aside for an actor/bodybuilder who couldn't do any more than he did. And, in the end, made things worse.

The trouble in California has long been the legislature, entrenched Democrat powers who have free reign over the state and really over the governor. Gray Davis was ineffective and got caught up in a lot of mismanagement schemes concerning electricity, but he was caught in a bind. Arnold promised a lot, had a very forceful first year standing up to the legislature, rammed through some possible propositions, all of which were voted down (entrenched powers have lots of money). After that, he seemed to increasingly lose the fight. By his second term he was a lackey as well.

Arnold the governor was just like Arnold the husband. Promising a lot, providing a lot at first, but ultimately willing to abandon his principles and his promises for a cheap thrill, wanting to feel the thrill of being palpably liked.

I vote for the liar who wants us believe he's not a tea partier, but really is - at least not when speaking openly. And as we all know, the Tea Party is not responsible for anything bad that went on in American government the last two years. Nothing at all.

phx, Of all the the (relatively few) Dems/ liberals here, I think you'd be one of the tiny few who might one day concede, or at least conceive, the possible prudence of an "independent" political stance-- and that means, a stance which might find it (depending on circumstances) prudent or at least conceivable to vote for a particular Republican candidate, at least as much as the Democrat.

You are in the right again yashu. My bad comment. My standards are usually higher, but no excuse.

Hillbuzz warned readers to watch carefully what the deciders were all deciding for us, and to resist, Kevin saw early the chosen candidate was Mitt and hated the idea of all candidates being eliminated one by one for this and that until finally there it was, the worst of all possible candidates for the Republicans, Mitt Romney, the candidate Democrats preferred for Republicans because they viewed him most easily defeated and because if if won he's most like them.

And now we see Romney, the worst possible candidate for a lot or Republicans, Crack will agree I think, kicking the living poo out of the Dem's best orator. He simply cannot think on his feet. Most people already knew that of course but now there is vivid proof. Livid proof.

My favorite part of that whole thing was watching straw men cartoon images go poof poof poof and the moderator finally going, Dude, you're out of time and Romney keeps right on, Yeah but shit just got real up here and he isn't getting away with that mischaracterization of me and my positions and explained his position as if speaking to retards BLAM! and I'm thinking, "after that astonishing takeback you're going to leave the subject without mentioning shifting 716 billion out of Medicare for Obamacare?" And right then, I mean right that moment of the thought in my head thinking it Romney goes, "Oh, one more thing ... BLAM! 700 billion shifted out of Medicare to support Obamacare and you said that is savings by coming down hard on waste then said, here you go Providers, 716 billion less $ now find the waste. " And I'm standing there emptying the dishwasher because I realized that has to be done everyday, going, "really? that just happened?"

Romney has been at least 10X (I'd argue much, much, much, more) consistent than Obama has ever been when it comes to his ideology, his rhetoric, his policies, and his personas. Do you acknowledge any of that?

How many heads does Obama's hydra contain, in your view? Less than Romney's, really?

Wait, you mean liberals don't all think alike and don't march in lockstep in support of Obama, without any criticism of or dissatisfaction with him? This totally contradicts everything I've learned about liberals from many right-wing commenters at this website! Such confusion.

@yashu,yashu said:Before the debate, I'd been thinking how Republicans/ conservatives (especially pundits) are much more apt than Democrats/ liberals (especially pundits) to criticize, attack, turn on their candidates. Which is in some ways and in some cases a virtue, and in others a vice.

Post debate, that contrast isn't so easy to maintain. I'm not sure whether my generalization is off base (I honestly think there's something to it), or whether what happened in this debate was just *that* shocking to Democrats and liberals.Let me see if I can help you out with the conundrum you posed.

Conservatives are far more willing to criticize, critique, attack, etc, conservative candidates. Democrats tend to lionize their leaders and overlook and/or excuse their flaws. See, for example anyone in the Kennedy clan.

But that only works as long as the person is seen as helpful to the progressive cause. If they disgrace themselves, or even if they are no longer useful to the movement, they are thrown under the bus. Not criticized, critiqued, and rehabilitated. It is as if that person is dead to the progressive movement. See: Cindy Sheehan, Al Gore, etc.

Maybe add Obama to that list. If he'd just lost, or lost close, he could be a political martyr, a rallying cry for GOTV efforts. But with how he humiliated himself in the debate, he has lost credibility. If he recovers some respectability with effective performances in the next 2 debates, he may regain their regard.

If not, he'll find himself under the bus he threw so many other people under.

He thought he was throwing them under his bus. He didn't realize he was merely the designated driver for a temporary time. The Cause is all for progressives. It is a faith.

A few weeks ago there was a lengthy article by Nicholas Lehmann in the New Yorker about Romney. It was surprisingly laudatory. I wouldn't expect The New Yorker to actualy endorse Romney, but they must be having some second thoughts....Obama's lamitude was on full display and was undeniable. A cover mocking Obama is not much, but it's a start. Perhaps others will come to the realization that a man who talks about healing the earth and not allowing the oceans to rise is not above mockery. The long arc of history bends towards increasing mockery of Obama's pretentious language.

Well if Romney wins who do I want to be around to cheer me up Nov 7? Freeman with her cheesy jokes - and that's a liberal use of the word jokes btw - or say, someone like jay, or edutcher, or even nathan alexander, who recently found his way onto my shit list.

Wait, you mean liberals don't all think alike and don't march in lockstep in support of Obama, without any criticism of or dissatisfaction with him? This totally contradicts everything I've learned about liberals from many right-wing commenters at this website! Such confusion.

I don't know what you've learned from "many right-wing commenters at this website" (NB the potential irony when juxtaposed to your own claim of an unfair generalization).

I myself recognize there's a wide spectrum of "liberal" commentary here. And there's an even wider spectrum of "right-wing" commentary (just in terms of sheer numbers).

Did I mention that debate was held very near where I took my first ASL classes? I dint? It was in a crummy old wooden building right at Evans and University behind the restaurant there at the precise corner, but still on that block. I went during high school, and I was underaged in High School and undersized due to being a late bloomer and everything so a really underaged out of place waif at DU where the students tolerated my presence so I tried to stay invisible and bask in their glory, and I thought, "oh wow, get me, everybody is so grown up!" Finally I was learning with grown ups, and their jokes were excellent and they goofed around a lot and didn't hurt me, but they all turned out to be fairly slow on the uptake. That surprised me. We could have gone a lot faster. Our text book was so simple you could read it in few hours.

I'd probably avoid all online political content. But in any case (adopting a Rawlsian veil of ignorance), maybe I'd hope Althouse (or some other blog I frequent) would have at least one or more posts of non-political content. Maybe a Dylan post.

I would want to immerse myself in a subject other than (or distract myself from) the election. I'll probably have a bunch of deeply engaging DVDs and medicaments (to be drunk or smoked) to numb out the blow (or celebrate, if I'm lucky enough to get the outcome I hope for).

I'd cheer you up yashu. I wouldn't rub it in too bad. Or say something really annoying to you like, "Obama sees things that are really there, which is much harder than seeing things you expect to see."

Wouldn't something like that just scorch your ass, you know? Just the vapidity of it.

The notion that this cover somehow means the New Yorker no longer supports Bark is ridiculous. They may be gently peeved, in a detached ironic sort of way, but he's their guy to the bitter end. The frozen chosen don't thaw. Certainly not for Mormon Republican businessmen.

Woops. I actually thought Mark was making a point about Chip's politics, and just rereading I see I was wrong. That's probably not what he intended. He was probably just complimenting Chip in a nice way.

Actually, I was just complimenting Chip. Good call. I think he and I probably overlap a good bit in political viewpoints. But you asked why he's on "our" side, and really, positing that I think he's not blinded by all the bullshit isn't vapid.

For kicks...I went to the Mpls Star Tribune editorial page on line today. A very liberal paper with very liberal readers.

It was quite funny. The letter writers were quite angry...they said Romney only seemed to do well becuase he lied, and....damn, I can't recall now, but there were about 4 letters all saying something to that affect.

It's like when I heard Bob Dylan was releasing a fundamentalist Christian album.

Bob Dylan, Chronicles p. 283, describing the time when he was with Suze Rotolo and on the threshold of his first Columbia record, around 1961-62:

I had a primitive way of looking at things and I liked country fair politics. My favorite politician was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who reminded me of Tom Mix, and there wasn't any way to explain that to anybody. I wasn't that comfortable with all the psycho polemic babble. It wasn't my particular feast of food. Even the current news made me nervous. I liked old news better. All the new news was bad. It was good that it didn't have to be in your face all day. Twenty-four-hour news coverage would have been living hell.

There was also that great Dave Van Ronk quote in No Direction Home - I don't have it in memory but the upshot was all the folkies were socialists and Dylan was very apolitical, "We thought he was so naive but it turned out we were the naive ones." Worth re-watching just to get that Van Ronk quote right.

phx, the conversation you're engaged in is interesting to me because everything about me should dictate that I'm a liberal.

Except my actual political beliefs.

I'd say all my political beliefs and values qualify as "classical liberal," though. (Nowadays "small-l-libertarian," but for many intents and purposes allied with conservatives.) But I do have a skeptical humility, as it were, that respects the conservative POV, on pragmatic grounds if nothing else. By the same token, I'm open to persuasion by "progressives"-- but anything in that direction would be grounded in and limited to individual liberty, as opposed to (and *actually* opposed to) government coercion.

I stand by me view the Bob Dylan is a conservative (but not actively thinking himself as that).

His life has involved having fun with his hobby (music and poetry and literature), and doing whatever is trendy to make him the most successful. Kind of like Sonny Bono. Cher says Bono wasn't a hippy, but a shrwed businessman who knew that the hippy look was good for the music biz at that time.

"Perspicuous" refers to the clarity and lucidity of the object or representation at hand. "Perspicacity" refers to the shrewdness and insight of the subject-- i.e. the person or mind thinking and representing.

Imagine being able to alter your world to bring back lost lovers, make someone sexually attracted to you,bring trust into your relationship, lose weight, stop smoking, get a promotion or raise, or simply come into big money. All is possible with the astounding power of the High PROPHET OF GODDESS and his outstanding spell casting abilities. You have the power to change the future, change your destiny, E mail me on prophetofgoddess@yahoo.com or view my website www.prophetofgoddess.com and get the things out of life you need to bring success, luck, and happiness.

There's a couple of things. One, the least important, when I hear "individual liberty" I'm reminded of Hemingway in A Farewell to Arms... Something about the obscenity of abstract words such as honor, glory, courage. Check out the quote if you don't know it. "Individual liberty" is like that to me as well - too abstract.

Yashu, you do surprise me at times. I guess I'm the epitome of a social liberal. Driven by emotion, feeeeelings. No regrets, apologies. We are who we are.

I didn't mean not to reply to you, Inga; I just can't tonight.

But it would make for an interesting conversation. In particular, anything that seems directly "driven by emotion"-- any thing that seems "immediate"-- calls for inspection and analysis. It may not be as simple as it seems.

@Paddy O said: Arnold the governor was just like Arnold the husband. Promising a lot, providing a lot at first, but ultimately willing to abandon his principles and his promises for a cheap thrill, wanting to feel the thrill of being palpably liked.

And it is nearly always this way. I laugh when ppl say to separate the personal and/or sexual from the public. Can't be done. The sexual is the essence. It can be covered or hidden, but not changed. It'll come out in your "real life".

I didn't vote for him and I'm not surprised it turned out how it did. Idiots of both parties voting for a celebrity. (He had to have a bunch of dems to win.)